Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TheGreatInstigator

Region II and III State Qualifiers

Recommended Posts

Regions II and III are at Overland this weekend (Tomorrow, which is Friday the 20th and Saturday the 21st). Marti Benham and Christine Sukup have both sent me emails about this, so I figured I'd repost the information. Debate will be on Saturday, with rounds at 8, 10, 12, and 2. I do not know if first-year outs are eligible to judge. Until someone tells me otherwise, I would assume that first-year outs are eligible.

 

Debaters must go 3-1 or 4-0 to qualify to state. These are the regions (I only listed schools that have CX teams or have had CX programs in the recent past):

 

Region II: Arapahoe, Cherry Creek, Golden, Kent Denver, Smoky Hill

 

Region III: Bear Creek, Mullen, Overland, Standley Lake

 

Denver East, Littleton, George Washington, and Douglas County will be competing at the Region VIII state quals next weekend. Again, debate will be on Saturday.

 

 

 

Also, CHSAA needs to consider restructuring the way that regions are assigned. I believe they currently divide metro area high schools with speech and debate programs into categories based on historical participation, then split teams in each category into the three regions. I suppose this makes sense, but I'm not sure how frequently the participation-based categories are reassigned. Bear Creek and Mullen have historically had large programs, but of the four CX schools in R III, only Overland has a large speech and debate team today (using my definition of large, which is somewhat subjective). Other biggish schools in R III include Highlands Ranch, Mountain Vista, and Pomona. I mean no offense to debaters from this year's R III schools, but you got a lucky draw compared to other CX schools in the metro area.

 

What's the disadvantage to going to a fixed-region system, like the one that's employed by CHSAA outside of the metro area or the one used for NFL qualifiers? You could put Jeffco and private schools like Mullen and Kent in one region, DPS and Cherry Creek schools in another region, and Douglas County and LPS in a third region. Or put DPS and Jeffco together, CCPS with the private schools and keep the same third region. Or put LPS with CCPS, DPS with Jeffco, and the private schools with Doug Co. I don't really care how the regions are designed, but the "luck of the draw" approach clearly doesn't result in much regional equity between events.

Edited by King Max
unnecessary comma is unnecessary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump. I was wondering if Tammie or Marti or any other coach who lurks on these boards could tell me whether or not CHSAA has considered revising the way Denver metro area state qualifying regions are assigned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way they are assigned or the way they are currently assigned?

 

I don't remember the process for the way they are assigned but I remember from when I was in high school that they are reassigned every 3 years? I think that's correct. Or it's 2. which would answer the way they are currently assigned but not the first question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way they are assigned or the way they are currently assigned?

 

I don't remember the process for the way they are assigned but I remember from when I was in high school that they are reassigned every 3 years? I think that's correct. Or it's 2. which would answer the way they are currently assigned but not the first question.

It's two. I understand how they're assigned and the reasoning behind it. However, when regions get broken up like they have been this year, I think it becomes clear that the system of assignment needs to be modified. Unless I'm mistaken, there are four "tier A" or "tier one" schools, and Kent isn't one of them (it's like Creek, Golden, Mullen and Lakewood or something like that. Maybe East). That seems problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qualifiers:

 

Region II:

Creek GO (4-0)

Creek HR (4-0)

Creek LT (3-1)

Kent KM (3-1)

 

Region III:

Eaglecrest (?)

 

Thanks to everyone who came out and judged! Even though we didn't have flow judges every round, it was a huge relief that none of our judges came in and asked what the speech times were.

Edited by esquiar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

I can tell you a little about the regioning of the Metro area.

 

There's quite a long history of how we build a "better mousetrap" when it comes to fairly dividing up Denver area teams. I can give you more of a history lesson if you'd like.

 

Right now, we draw for Regions every two years. Every school is assigned a category based on the previous two years entries in Regional Qualifying. One category is a large team with 3-4 CX teams every year, the next category is a large team with 2 or fewer CX teams every year, etc.

 

We are currently in the first year of the two year cycle. Next year, though, will be the final year of what has affectionately been called the "Denver Shuffle."

 

Bginning in the 2010-2011 school year, CHSAA will create fixed regions for the Metro area. There will be two regions. All redistricting will be done by CHSAA officials -- speech coaches will not be involved. (The last time there was a redistricting for fixed districts, coach members of that committe were harassed by coaches objecting to being placed with certain other schools -- I know of 2AM phone calls and some mild threats.) Paul Angelico, the CHSAA Commissioner for Speech, will head up the redistricting. Over the next year, he and those with whom he will work (all CHSAA officials) will have to decide how much emphasis they will put on geography, keeping school districts together, and considering historic entries.

 

This new district plan will last until it is determined that it isn't working. Perhaps there will be a huge influx of programs over the next 10 years and 2 Regions will get overstretched. Perhaps there will be a drastic change in the appeal of certain events in the next 10 years that will require some other approach (such as the drop in CX participation over the past 5 years).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tammie:

 

Thanks for the information. The plan, as you've explained it, seems sensible to me, so I suppose I tentatively support it. I have just one (fairly unimportant) question: are non-metro regions being redistricted as well, or are we simply going from four non-metro regions (not counting Festival) and three metro regions to four non-metro regions and two metro regions? If the non-metro regions are not being redistricted, then it would seem that this proposal would make metro area competition even tougher while keeping the already easier non-metro regions at the same level of competition.

 

How do you feel about this move? If you're opposed, would you mind explaining your reasons why?

 

My final question concerns the fate of the previous fixed-region systems that were implemented. I imagine that the regions were discarded at a point in CHSAA history when great inequalities in competitive difficulty became apparent, at which point CHSAA decided to go to a system that would modify itself every two years (i.e. the system we have now). I suppose I could see how that would have been persuasive at the time, but the biannual redistricting has always seemed to produce a very different dynamic to metro area competition than exists in rural areas. This manifests itself in two ways:

 

(1) Non-metro coaches always had the benefit of knowing the styles of regional rivals, meaning that non-metro debaters could perfect a year-long or career-long strategy with prior notions of exactly how their opponents would plan to debate or speak. Think about this like divisional competition in MLB or conference competition in the NCAA. Sure, Ohio State wants to build a football team that can beat Florida and Miami and USC and Texas, but it needs to beat Michigan to get to those bowl games, so the Ohio State team is designed with beating Michigan in mind.

 

(2) More importantly, non-metro regions had to "suck it up and deal" when their regions were tough and got a free pass when their regions were soft. Region I can be very difficult -- Greeley West, Greeley Central, Rocky Mountain, Ft. Collins, and Poudre all had strong teams at the same time while I was in high school. At that same time, there were a couple good debaters at Widefield and not much other competition in the Colorado Springs region. The checks and balances in the metro region were supposed to stop this kind of inequality from happening, but teams from Greeley Central and Rocky Mountain got shoved out of the state tournament by stiff competition from other regional schools, while Air Academy sent a whole slew of novices to state because they had the biggest squad in an otherwise uncompetitive region.

 

My point here isn't that the checks and balances that exist in the metro region now should be dispersed throughout the state -- it would be ridiculous to ask Moffat County to compete in a "regional" tournament against Pueblo Centennial. I'm saying that if non-metro schools don't have that check, metro schools shouldn't get it either.

 

Sorry for the incredibly lengthy and rambling response. I hope you can decipher the claims I'm making. If not, ask and I'll clarify.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congratulations to all qualifiers!

 

Eaglecrest, eh? I don't think they've had a team since Taurean and his partner, and those guys graduated back in 2004. So that's exciting...

 

Hey, this is Taurean, back in the game. Just graduated from CU Boulder, now back coaching Eaglecrest and hopefully bringing our school back to some form of prominence in the debate community. Sadly my 2 cx debaters are graduating, but I'll just get some freshmen to mold to make a new cx team. Been to quite a few tournies now this year and it really is sad how much CX has fallen from its graces of my day. There are still some good teams, but there is poor policy debate turnout at most all tournaments. Either way I'll do as much cx judging as they allow me to do, so you guys will have another judge @ major tournies.

 

Best wishes

 

Taurean Davis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My point here isn't that the checks and balances that exist in the metro region now should be dispersed throughout the state -- it would be ridiculous to ask Moffat County to compete in a "regional" tournament against Pueblo Centennial. I'm saying that if non-metro schools don't have that check, metro schools shouldn't get it either.

 

Greg,

 

I think you bring up some great points. In fact all of my debaters do spend the entire season creating a strategy against the other debate teams in the region. By the time my CXer's get to Regionals we know what Aff cases they will run, and we have a pretty good idea of what they will run on neg as well. This to me seems like more of a region than the mess in Denver. I don't see how this is any different from a basketball team or a football team knowing and preparing for their competition though. You can argue that this region is weaker (which overall it probably is in CX simply because we don't have a Creek or Kent in our region, but there are a few pretty good teams) but plenty of state champions in the other events have come from the western slope.

 

As far as your argument about geography. Moffat County and Durango are in the same state qualifying region. On a yellow bus, that's at least a 10 hour drive. Montrose and Moffat County are in the same region, 5 hour drive etc. etc... So we already think that the geography of our region is ridiculous for all of the schools involved, but there is no way of handling the regions over here any different. That's why Denver's regions switch and ours never do. How many Denver schools do you think want to drive to Durango or Moffat County to compete in a regional tournament?

Edited by hans7451

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taurean,

 

Good to see you around. I don't think you know me, but I believe you knew Kirby Bywaters, who graduated from Littleton a year before I did (2006 for Kirby, 2007 for me).

 

Eric,

 

I see your point. There aren't many metro schools that travel outside the Denver area for regular season tournaments (Littleton went to the tournament at Rocky Mountain for three years while I was in high school, but that was it). Considering this, I think keeping the whole state on fixed regions makes a lot more sense than having the whole state on rotating regions -- my point was simply that CHSAA should do one or the other, since the rotating regions in the Denver area seem to create a great strategic difference between how Denver schools prepare and how non-metro schools prepare.

 

Also, I had a chance to talk to a couple of your juniors at Berkeley. I hope I get the chance to finally meet you at state...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Hopefully they can work something out that will be beneficial to everyone involved. I also hope that I'll get to meet you at state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the "redistricting" will only affect Denver-area, and possibly the Northern Region. By that I mean that there are a couple of Denver-area schools, such as Ranum/Westminster, who attend mostly northern schools and would like to be put in the Northern Region.

 

As for preparing for one's competition, that's a good point (and not just for debate). In Region 2 this year, Golden was the only school from our NFL District and only 1 of 2 schools from Jefferson County. Considering that we mostly meet Jeffco Schools and Rocky Mtn North schools, we weren't sure what to expect. We hadn't met Chaparral all year, and I think we had seen Kent just once or twice. As the regional chair, I didn't know by face several of the coaches with whom I was going to work (Arapahoe, Grandview, Thunder Ridge, etc). It was a very strange feeling to recognize only a couple of faces in the tab room.

 

I don't know what is "fairest" when it comes to Regional quals. I know geography limits the rest of the state and the metro-area has some choices no one else has. The shuffle was set up many years ago when schools would rather drop programs than compete against certain schools. Other schools in the state don't have the luxury of protesting their competition in that way. The Shuffle was also created to help equalize the size of the Regions. It was a way to get away from those years when one region had "all" the CX while another region had 4-5 teams. Again, this is a luxury other areas of the state couldn't have because of geography. However, the shuffle was always confusing. Additionally, Regions (ideally) are supposed to provide a sort of "home base" for coaches (especially new coaches) -- a place to find mentors, get teaching ideas, share information. The Jeffco coaches have always been close in this way. However, the constantly revolving regions provides no sense of connection or loyalty. And why would loyalty be important? Since the non-debate events qualify as a percentage of those entered, many of us send "fodder" entries to build up the number of qualifiers. It's difficult to convince kids that entering a second event is important if it helps total strangers qualify to state.

 

I think some of your philosophical objections may have been part of the decision to end the Denver Shuffle. Additionally, forensics is a bit smaller these days and Denver can't adequately support 3 regions -- 2 regions would provide 2 good sized tournaments (not monsters, but definitely more than 2 sections of a small event).

 

Ideally, I would hope for a geographic split, probably north and south. I'd like to stay with some Jeffco schools and some Rocky Mtn North schools, but I'd also like to have my kids have to deal with schools we don't often see. My first idea (and this is not an official suggestion as I have absolutely no "in" into this issue) is to cut the metro area around Hampden or Yale. Golden would be with Lakewood, Pomona, Standley, etc. plus all the Denver schools, Gateway, Thornton, Rangeview, etc. The south area would be Creek, Kent, Overland, Mullen, Littleton, Bear Creek, Columbine, Chatfield, all the Douglas County schools, etc. That way we'd see some familiar faces and have to prepare for some "strangers."

 

Just a few of my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...